My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/15/2011 (4)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2011
>
03/15/2011 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2018 2:11:31 PM
Creation date
3/23/2016 8:36:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
03/15/2011
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL000008\S0002II.tif
SmeadsoftID
11228
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
169
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
fees for one year until March 31, 2012. The three fees currently proposed for suspension are public <br />buildings, law enforcement, and solid waste facilities. <br />Pursuant to the county's ordinance adoption procedures, staff advertised for an impact fee suspension <br />public hearing to be held on March 15, 2011. Besides advertising for the public hearing, staff also <br />prepared draft impact fee suspension ordinances. Copies of those ordinances are attached to this staff <br />report. , <br />To provide maximum flexibility for the Board when considering extending the impact fee suspension, <br />staff included all five of the currently suspended impact fees in the suspension extension public hearing <br />advertisement. That will allow the Board to extend the suspension of any or all of the five currently <br />suspended impact fees. <br />ANALYSIS <br />As of this time, the county's impact fee suspension hm, been in- effact for almst two years, During that. <br />time, building permit activity declined and then flattened out. For example, the number of single- <br />family building permit applications in the unincorporated county and the City of Vero Beach declined <br />from 301 in the:pre-suspension April 1, 2008 — January 31; 2009 period to 194 in the April 1, 2009 — <br />January 31, 2010 suspension period and then slightly increased to 197 in the April 1, 2010 — January <br />31, 2011 suspension period. Given those figures, one can conclude that either the suspension had little <br />or no effect or that building permit activity would have been even lower without the suspension. <br />While the extension of the impact fee suspension will result in additional unrealized revenues, the <br />anticipated revenue loss will not be substantial due to the slow pace of development that the county is <br />currently experiencing. Further, this loss of revenue will not have a substantial adverse effect on the <br />ability to fund capital needs in these areas. <br />Comparison of Selected Impact Fee Rates Before and After Suspension <br />Over the past two years, the suspended impact fees have resulted in lower impact fee payments for both <br />residential and commercial projects. During that time, however, commercial projects fared better, with <br />an average impact fee reduction of 30% to 50%, compared to an average of 12% to 15% reduction for <br />residential projects. <br />The reason for the difference between commercial and residential is that only 6 of the 9 impact fees <br />imposed by the county apply to commercial projects, while all nine apply to residential projects. Since <br />the five suspended fees all apply to both residential and commercial projects, the suspension resulted in <br />commercial projects paying only one impact fee (transportation), while residential projects paid four <br />impact fees. <br />2 <br />64 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.